Fact-checking is second-nature in me. So when I saw this comment, I had to check it out (emphasis added):

"Godless secular leftism is the end result--complete apostasy and the existence of a society that rips down symbols of the One God and literally puts up monuments to Satan." -- National Review comment

My good friend Google helped me discover that this is a real story, as unbelievable as that sounds. The quote is not quite accurate in all its parts. A tiny segment of society is trying to put up a literal monument to Satan, namely a statue of Satan. The same tiny sect isn't ripping down the symbol of the One God, but rather trying to share public space with a display of the Ten Commandments.

Here's the story: The Oklahoma state government allowed the display of the Ten Commandments on state property by the State House. The monument was paid for by private funds, so it wasn't literally funded with public tax monies. Some other groups have sought to erect statues to other religious figures in the same place under a fairness doctrine. These groups include a satanic cult (now raising funds) and a Hindu group that wants to erect a statue to the monkey god Lord Hanuman. The ACLU wants the Ten Commandments monument removed, and no religious monuments at the public site.

Now, who seems to be the voice of reason? And who didn't pay attention to foreseeable consequences? Sigh.

Coming soon to Oklahoma

Image: theblackcatcloset.com

Update 1/7/14. See the statue proposal submitted by the Satanists. Children will love it, to the horror of non-Satanist parents.

Monday, December 23, 2013

I've been reading National Review quite a bit more than usual since the government shutdown. They have constantly appealed for donations to their free-speech fund, or some such, that they're using to pay for their defense against charges of libel.

"Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science...

Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing."

That first sentence was a quote from elsewhere, but it was quoted approvingly. The second was penned by Mark Steyn. Somehow I don't think the word 'fraudulent' is the actual point of contention.

I've heard of Mark Steyn before but never read much. What I've seen recently shows that he loves to make comparisons to the most vile analogues he can find. Here he compares the gay pressure group involved in the Duck Dynasty fiasco to those who have driven Christians out the Middle East. And also to the Soviet commissar in charge of politicizing chess (what??), who was eventually executed.

After reading this column and being frustrated that National Review wasn't forthcoming about why they're in this trouble, I'm unable to feel upset that the National Review is being sued. Part of me is downright happy that such uncivil writing has repercussions.

Image titled "Mark Steyn and soul" -- Hits the mark

Image: sadlyno.com

Update 1/18/14. This comment prodded to find out what was happening now with Mark Steyn (gag) and the legal suit. It seems that Mark Steyn's work hasn't appeared in National Review for several weeks and his lawyers have dropped him. This writer blames one or both of these developments on a relatively mild post (for Steyn). Steyn slams the previous judge in the case but at least doesn't compare her to a group that committed a large number of murders. So sad that his fans are missing their regular doses of vitriol.

Sunday, December 22, 2013

So a leadingmajorhigh-profile semi-recognizable star person from a reality show got rather anatomical when he was explaining why he didn't understand homosexuality or perhaps he was being a homophobe. I don't know why anyone cares because reality TV participants aren't filmed for their mild observations or platitudes, but for their crazy antics.

Then a gay pressure group pressured the cable network (A&E, but it could have been any of them), and the network caved immediately and "suspended" the "star." Publicity ensues. Charges of abrogation of the First Amendment ensue. The news media is delighted because it finds next injection of controversy, especially needed right now because the congress critters (Damn them!) patched together an agreement and went home for Christmas.

I've never given a damn about what a reality star said. Not anyone on Jersey Shore, not one Survivor, not any of the numerous glitzy, boozy, over-made-up Housewives. These people are the lowest, and I don't know what they are doing on my TV (a topic that might deserve a discussion), but what they say is of NO CONSEQUENCE AT ALL.

So ignore it. Don't get involved in a controversy about what an empty-headed media whore says. That also goes for: Ted Nugent, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, etc. And Sarah Palin too. She has to decide whether she's a reality star (which is how she behaves) or a politician. If she's a reality star, she doesn't have to been careful. Instead, she can trash talk all she wants. If she's trying to be an influential political leader, her words should matter, and they shouldn't fall to the low level of the reality TV personality, like these:

"Just finished a long week-thinking in a few weeks we could be living in a very different America-pls Excersise your right and Vote.Pls"

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care."

"Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

"Don't Retreat. Reload."

Image: humorismy.biz

Extras. Other stupid Palin quotes. More here and here and here. Some people laud stupid. More on the Duck Dynasty person here and here, if you want to research it more. Personally, I regret the time I've wasted on this story, but I did decide one thing: Call them stupid and move on. No boycotts required.

Finally, to be honest, one of the Palin "quotes" above came from a real (dumb) celebrity. Read the other celeb quotes and then you'll realize why we can't hold celebs to the same standards as our politicians, reporters, or pundits.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

...because these are the right kind of jobs. These jobs are involved in producing something of value in the world, and that value isn't likely to evaporate in a slowdown. Some industries, like retail, the arts, and casinos, don't have vitality because people cut back strongly in these areas during in a recession. Of course people cut back on energy usage in recessions too, but not nearly to the same degree.

So, if we build the pipeline, we'll have the construction jobs and then the maintenance and control jobs. We should also be collecting transit fees. If the Canadians want to run this pipeline through our country, they can pay us some sort of royalty, but not so much that it becomes uneconomical for them to use the pipeline. If the oil ends up being processed in the US, there are more jobs in that too. But there's also a strong chance that the oil will be exported, so we shouldn't count on refining jobs. The long-term benefits to this country may be limited to maintenance jobs and transit fees, so that's what we need to lock in.

There may be some strong reasons not to build the pipeline too. If the pipeline leaks and causes expensive environmental damage, there go all the profits! If there aren't profits, why the hell would we want it? But probably the pipeline can be built and operated safely. I don't know for sure because it's outside what I can readily research.

Other considerations, like how dirty the oil is, how much carbon pollution it causes, how the extraction may cause environmental damage to Canada--these considerations are less important than our national need for productive jobs. I wish it wasn't so, but I feel it is. We have lost so many of our productive jobs, and this project would replace some of them. These would be new US jobs and new foreign exchange flowing into the US, not just eating the lunch of some other part of the country, so we need this.

We should do this project and other projects that bring production back to the US. That's the only way to rebuild a strong economy. An economy based on service jobs and finance--not so good, as the past decade has shown us.

Friday, December 20, 2013

A federal judge ruled that marriage must be available to same-sex partners in Utah, prompting couples to flood county clerk's offices. I guess same-day marriage is permitted in Utah too. (When I got married in New York, you had to get the license a few days in advance.)

The federal judge didn't stay the decision even though it's predictable that it will be appealed. That allowed the couples to GO FOR IT in what may be a 1-day window to get legally married. If California is a precedent, these happy couples will remain married even if the ruling is overturned. Here are some of the joyous couples in line for licenses:

Thursday, December 19, 2013

So both Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are making noises about putting up a fight on the debt ceiling increase. One problem--they haven't decided what to demand yet. This is so much the same as earlier this year when the GOP met several times trying to figure out their strategy, and basically ended up with a strategy vacuum that was filled by Ted Cruz's "Defund Obamacare" fiasco.

Probably the GOP will plump for the a different fiasco this time. Just maybe they'll figure that a half-baked idea is worse than nothing at all, and will instead think through their position. Do they want to push for some more spending restraint? Entitlement reform?

They better decide damn quick because it's only 2 months until the debt ceiling is reached, and they can't be unveiling their position one day or one week before the deadline. The GOP looked incredibly stupid with their changing slate of ridiculous demands just before the government shutdown, so the GOP should know not to do that again.

But the problem has always been that having demands isn't enough. You must have specific, sensible demands. If the GOP wants spending cuts, what the hell are they? Is the pain balanced, or targeted only at their political enemies? It's going to be easy for Obama and the Dems to say "no negotiations" to a half-baked list of demands, but much harder if it's a well-considered plan. This should be obvious by now, but the GOP opinion leaders (the noise makers with their legions of dittoheads) are too cloaked in the conservative thought bubble to have noticed it.

I hope that the GOP decides on a small slate of targeted spending cuts. It's doable and they can run a PR campaign on it. There are rumors that they'll try to get some entitlement reform, but they aren't close to ready for that, with the exception of chained CPI. Entitlement reform will take a lot of heavy thinking from a bipartisan commission like Simpson-Bowles or the 80's Greenspan Commission. There's no way the GOP can get any meaningful entitlement reform in the next two months, so why the hell are they pretending otherwise? Again, it makes them look like ridiculous amateurs.

Meanwhile the Dems are just sitting back, letting the GOP shoot themselves in the foot. They're taking advantage to a small degree, but not enough to look greedy and untrustworthy. Somewhere along the line, the Dem leaders learned not to overplay their rather weak hand--not because they became responsible adults, but because they got their asses handed to them in the 2010 election. They learned how quickly the country will turn on them. The leaders learned, that is, not the noisy social justice element. Those guys still think the congressional Dems can play hardball to increase social spending and taxes. Some people never learn. Isn't that the truth.

Monday, December 16, 2013

There are places with organized voter fraud, mostly through the bundling of absentee ballots, but not in Iowa. But too many conservatives are invested in theories of voter fraud to explain election results they disagree with. So it must be investigated, even in upstanding Iowa. Read about the horrifying cases, including [gasp] the mother who forged her daughter's signature... and then turned herself in.

Saturday, December 14, 2013

The Senate may turn Republican in 2014 because of the Civil War. That's incredible, but likely true. A war 150 years ago is still playing out in US politics.

Not exactly. At first I thought some deep south states might still switch from D to R, but then I checked my hypothesis and found that the Deep South's switch from traditional Democratic representation to Republican was complete in 2004 when Zell Miller (D) retired and was replaced by a Republican in the Georgia senatorial election.

So why are the Republicans expected to take over the Senate in 2014, and why had it been expected in 2012? What are the developments that lead to that general expectation?

First, I'll dispel the notion that more states vote Republican than Democrat as a matter of course: Obama won 26 states in 2012.

So What Are The Trends?

To research this question, I used Wikipedia's list of senators, such as this entry for Maine. I looked at the patterns of the elections of senators. (Senators, being state-wide representatives, are better bellwethers.) I was surprised by the number of states that had mixed Dem/GOP electoral results for much of their history.

Myth - the inland west was mostly Republican. They were all mixed until Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Arizona turned decidedly Republican.

Myth - The northeast has been mostly Democratic for a long time. Northern New England was very Republican until recently. The northeast has turned mostly Dem only since the 1980s, while Northern New England remains mixed.

Myth - The old Confederacy was solid Dem, and then became solid Republican. This isn't true of Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas.

Myth - the rural plains and mountain states are strongly GOP. Surprisingly, North and South Dakota and Montana have a very mixed record, electing many senators from both parties.

Myth - the west coast has been liberal for a long time. These states were also mixed until the 1990s when they started turning decidedly Dem.

My research revealed that the GOP has a lot of reason for optimism when it comes to the Senate. Seven states that currently have Democratic senators are likely to turn more solidly Republican. The states are: North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana, and Alaska.

The Dems don't have many states on which they can pin similar hope, at least for the 2014 election. Maine and New Hampshire have the potential to become more liberal/Dem. Until the demographics change in states like Georgia, Texas, and Arizona, Dems have to hope for lucky pickups or wins due to strong local candidates.

So the GOP will go into the 2014 senate elections favored to pick up seats.

Yes, Civil War Fallout

The biggest surprise is that this sunny outlook for the Republican is indeed Civil War fallout. Arkansas and Louisiana are both southern states that are coming late to the conversion from solid Democrat to solid Republican. But that is only part of the good news for the GOP. They are also benefiting from the shift of western conservatives to solid Republican status.

1959: A very different map. New York is red, Texas is blue.

Image: wikipedia.org

Other Notes/Observations.

The most solid Republican state is Kansas. No state has been solidly Democratic throughout its history.

Solid Democratic states: 12.
Solid Republican states: 15.
Mixed: 23.

Northern New England was quite Republican until the 1950's, but the rest of New England has been much more mixed. Southern New England, mixed, then mostly Dem starting 2000

Edit 3/23/14. Fixed mistakes. North Dakota isn't having a Senate election in 2014. Added W. Virginia and N. Carolina as likely to become more Republican. Also, 538 is currently predicting that the GOP takes control of the Senate. The GOP will probably try very hard to be more careful this year in their Senate nominations because of the mistakes in 2012. That will also increase their odds of taking the Senate.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

In my last post I discussed some of the fiscal aspects of the deal--the simple math, walking back part of the sequester, some fees--mostly small stuff.

The bigger impact of the deal is that it's a two-year budget. There won't be a government shutdown for two years. This is an even longer period than that covered by the August 2011 deal, which laid out the budget until after the next big election. Why is this for a longer period, instead of until after the next election? A good question to ponder.

The deal doesn't include debt ceiling increases. Why? To allow the Tea Party congressional members to do a bit of grandstanding and vote against the debt ceiling several times. The debt ceiling increases will pass with enough votes from Republicans and amid charges of RINOism and treason. Yawn.

The Tea Partyers and their organizations are trying to raise a ruckus over this deal, but John Boehner told them to shut up. Besides, it's a done deal because THE HOUSE ALREADY PASSED IT!!!!! Wow, that was fast, and was planned to be that way. The House gets to adjourn and soon the Senate will rubberstamp the deal too. And everyone goes home for Christmas unlike last year. If you're taking a Christmas trip to a national park or monument, they'll be open and staffed. [House vote: GOP 169-62, Dem 162 -32.]

The Tea Party is a clear loser in this. The only leverage they'll have is the very dangerous debt-default-no-debt-ceiling-increase gambit. Their numbers aren't high enough to carry out that dynamite trick, but they can still make noise about it. This article points out that Paul Ryan gains stature as an adult politician when you need one. No one is writing the same about Patty Murray (I just checked). She's still a hack in my book, but she can be a good little sock puppet for Harry Reid when he needs her.

So, what will the two parties do in the next two years? They could start the really tough negotiations on Medicare, Medicaid, and, to a lesser extent, Social Security. They could lob mudballs at each other for the next 11 months until the 2014 midterm elections. The GOP could continue its Cold Civil War, and it could completely explode. Since it doesn't take that many people to negotiate, we could have all this possibilities playing out at the same time. Any negotiations that occur will be only exploratory because each side will want to wait for the outcome of the midterm elections in hope for an improvement in their position. (I should clarify who might negotiate: the establishment GOP, the establishment Dems, certainly not the Tea Party GOP.)

This is a better outcome than I was expecting. They compromised without kicking and screaming, and actually changed the terms from the previous testy agreement. That shows a modicum of flexibility where I hadn't expected any. Wow. Merry Christmas, everyone. Peace on Earth, goodwill to men.

This isn't really a surprise. The hard work came in convincing the GOP to start negotiating and stop trying to defund Obamacare. So the real accomplishment was achieved get in October and consisted of getting the GOP to stop being crazy and act like adults. Since that deal, the adults have been in charge, and the adults were able to make a deal by splitting the difference. Of course, any fifth grader can probably average $967 and $1058 and get an answer close to $1012; it takes adults to do the math when it's billions.

The harder work was walking back some of the sequester spending cuts and putting other cuts or revenues in their place. The new revenues (called fees) are getting the press notice. The most notable one is the increase in the federal fee for airport security that's added onto the cost of airline tickets. This fee is increasing a non-painful $2.50 per ticket. It means that less general revenue (such as income taxes) will be needed to subsidize airport security, freeing the money for other spending, of course. This fee hike seems fair to me--it's not huge, it's not soaking one group, it's making the service pay for itself more. That's all good.

But what about those other cuts, which were supposed to be more targeted? I looked it up and it's the same cutting "waste and abuse." I hope they have actually done their homework and identified waste they can cut and therefore save actual money, not vapor money. But it's not really belt-tightening...

...except for federal employees, some of whom will now have to contribute more to their pension funds. This sounds fair too. It broadens the pain among the federal workers, who've suffered somewhat less than private sector workers.

The money that's been freed up is being split equally between defense and non-defense spending, so both sides are getting a small extra helping from the pot. That means there's not much budget discipline in this deal. It's sliding back from what the sequester tried to achieve--actual reduction in spending. I don't know how much of the sequester will actually go into effect. One article said 50% of what was planned for 2014 and 2015. So much for our collective attempts to rein in federal spending. We didn't even maintain half of round 1 of the cuts. We are sad wimps indeed.

I'd really like to see spending reduced in a gradual way, with the least effective spending targeted first. But Dems are set on protecting all their favored projects and so are the GOP. No one wants to give up anything on their side for the greater good. Sigh.

Image: opb.org

Extras.Analysis from the Heritage Foundation. The analysis of the airline fee increases is obviously muddled, which I discovered by following the link they helpfully provided. Some numbers from WaPo, an overview from the Atlantic Wire.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Insider reporting is a mixed bag. It's great to find out what's in the minds of the decision makers or deal makers, but such news stories are often stuffed with the glorification of minutiae. This article, evidently sourced from inside Harry Reid's office, is better than most. It shows the successful partnership and political strategy used by Obama and Reid in this fall's budget negotiation. Yes, the same negotiation where the GOP was switching game plans twice a day.

Here's a summary through my jaded viewpoint: Reid is angry at Obama for giving too much in other negotiations. They agree to a united front and they pull it off.

What is missing is a concern about the next election, and how this deal would help the position of the Dems with respect to the electorate. Instead, the focus is what the Dem elected officials hope to get or avoid giving up in the negotiations--not a bigger picture. How they decide which positions they should stake out and why those are good positions for them, or more importantly good for the country, that's the inside story I'd love to read.

I realized earlier this year that I can't imagine what this country would be like without Ronald Reagan having been president. Not having him would have been similar in impact to the civil rights movement failing. I also realized that I would have voted for him at the time if I had known how his leadership would have played out.

I didn't vote for him, but not just because I was still habitually in the liberal camp. Many of his positions were pure bullshit (bring back school prayer) and some seemed dangerous, like the bravado against the Soviet Union. I already knew not to believe everything a politician promised, so I didn't worry much about the loss of abortion rights.

The impetus for my thoughts and this post was hearing a Commonwealth of California broadcast with James Baker. [Sorry, but I couldn't find a link.] He spoke about several environmental issues, including Reagan's strong support for a robust treaty on the industrial chemicals linked to the ozone hole. That is such a contrast to today's GOP.

After listening to James Baker, I was in a particularly pro-Reagan mood, and I started to wonder: did I have any solid reasons to worry that Reagan was against environmental protections? Then I remembered that Reagan had appointed an egregious twerp as Secretary of the Interior. This guy was so bad I can still remember his name--James Watt. That memory killed the pro-Reagan buzz and put me back into crisp reality.

So here are my lists of what I liked and disliked about Reagan in retrospect:

PLUSES

Stopped the spiral of social spending

Tackled some tough problems like SS and Soviet Union

Flexibility--policy changes in response to changes in situation

Good response to ozone hole--backed a strong treaty

Lowered ridiculously high tax rates

Genial with other people, willing to negotiate in good faith and for the greater good

MINUSES

Rhetoric, probably empty, about rolling back good reforms on school prayer and abortion

Rhetoric vilifying and dehumanizing various conservative targets like women on welfare and the Soviets

James Watt, the worst Secretary of Interior, who had no sense of preservation or conservation

Robert Bork, a reactionary, evil legal genius who might have sent the Supreme Court on a course of incredibly harsh but solid rulings

Frequently pandering to the conservative base instead of using good judgment

Luckily we were spared the worst damage that Reagan might have wrought, but there were definitely some big risks. Because we got mostly the pluses and less of the minuses, Reagan was quite a good president. I sorely wish his like was running for office these days.

Image: dailykos.com

Extras. Reagan's Top 10 from a brainless conservative viewpoint, that is, the typical kind of bluster. A compendium of short intelligent essays. I'll be working my way through them. A fascinating detailed list that's remarkably even-handed.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

I'm a strong supporter of ACA. However, I didn't realize until this fall how much my middle-class background contributes to that viewpoint.

Here's the background. Middle-class people are used to living comfortably, with enough money so that running out of money isn't a problem that they've faced. Sure, some get into money trouble by excessive spending or risky investments, but most middle-class people avoid that because they strongly fear poverty--the hand-to-mouth existence is the opposite of middle-class security.

So imagine how a cancer diagnosis affects a middle-class person. He isn't used to the uncertainty, and the treatment of cancer is almost always physically unpleasant. However, it's manageable if there's a good chance that you can return to your old life.

Wrenching choices

Now imagine that cancer diagnosis if you knew you couldn't return to your old life. This is how it feels when a middle-class person faces an extremely expensive, uncovered medical expense. You are almost guaranteed to plunge yourself and your family into a poverty they have never experienced before.

It's little wonder to me that some/many middle-class people in this position might choose to ignore the signs of illness. On one hand, it looks like they (that is, me) value money over life. However, a different way of interpreting the choice is that they choose to maintain their family's comfort and way of life over their own lives. They sacrifice their own lives to maintain the family--something which is easier to understand than why they won't pay what it takes to treat the illness.

This is how I think, and perhaps I'm generalizing too much. But I'm not the only one who feels this way. This also explains the behavior of the woman made famous in the anti-Romney ad. She chose to ignore her symptoms because she didn't have medical insurance, and died because of it. She avoided saddling her family with debt--maybe they even got a life insurance payout. That could well have been preferable to her. I certainly would be to me.

This is why good medical coverage is so important to the comfortable middle class ethos. It's probably one of the first questions families ask when someone gets a job. With more of the middle-class out of work, 2008 was a great time to push for universal coverage, and it finally passed, though more because of the 60 Democrats in the Senate.

Answers from the class divide

If you don't believe there's a class divide in how people view health coverage, read this post giving advice to the uninsured. Look at the range of answers, from which social workers are the best; to how to cash in your insurance to pay for your care; to shopping around for care in other countries. The advice strikes me as coming from solidly middle-class people... until this answer from a commenter named so_so (sorry, no link):

"In August I was diagnosed with a Nice big fat cancerous tumor in My Bladder,,, It Required surgery because I had to have a Catheter .. Could not Pee!!!! [...] I was with a Catheter for almost 1 month and family took up a collection for me to give the Doctor 500.00 Otherwise I was just out of luck.... Needless to say I have not been to the Doctor again... Can not afford it... I do not have money....And do not want Charity... It does not make me feel good at all....( Still not over the Family and X family I had sending 500.00 here... Yes grateful, But taking help from People You know hate you is not a good feeling... ) And that will never let you live it down,,,EVER!!! despite the 500.oo they sent I now owe the Hospital close to 10 thousand.... And it was a day surgery,,,, I talked them into letting me go home....I knew i could not afford the stay.... Glad I did not stay,,,, It will take me a good long while to pay that off..... The Doctor told me 50/50 chance it will come back...."

I don't believe this woman will pay her $10K hospital bill, but it didn't keep her from getting or taking the medical care. I was astonished by this post because it is so different from my attitude. I wouldn't take on medical debt I couldn't pay as this woman did. Though she doesn't admit it, she is a charity case pretending that she isn't one. That option probably isn't open to me, nor should it be necessarily.

Why should my child's college fund, my retirement savings, my additional savings, and the equity in my house be exempt from the bills I run up? Sure, I'd like them to be, but that's not how our personal finance laws work. So I assume charity care is reserved for those who don't have the funds I have.

Self-reliance vs. Outside security

Here's another example of the difference in attitude to how the uninsured should deal with medical expenses:

"I have a good friend... He is a manual laborer of sorts and has never had health insurance all the time that I have known him. I am aware of one time that he experienced kidney stones and was in real agony. He went to the Emergency Room and was treated. The bill was $4,000.

He depleted his entire savings account and paid the bill in full. The only thing he owned, which would have been attached had he not paid the bill, was his 12 year old pickup truck which he had to use to work. I would also add that he has suffered with a bad back for 10 years but still has been able to work, most of the time, in pain. But work, yes he has continued to do so."

The teller of this story, a conservative I follow named Anson Burlingame, sees this as a story of self-reliance. I see it somewhat differently. Yes, this man was self-reliant. He's been careful and hasn't squandered his money, and toughed it out what he could. But he's also used his entire financial cushion in one day, and he doesn't have any money for the next emergency. What will he do next time? That might also be another reason why he's a hero to conservatives. This man is willing to do what a middle-classer fears so much--pay all the money he has to settle his debt, and go on with his life. Why can't a middle-class family do the same?

There is a cultural difference, not just political differences, in attitudes to ACA. Many approve of charity for the truly poor, but everyone else should be self-reliant. The safety net shouldn't be provided by government, but by the family and community. The Mommy-State takes away this self-reliance and eliminates the need to stay on good terms with your family and community. You can be selfish, lazy, rebellious, or irresponsible, and Mommy will still take care of you. There is some truth to this, but it doesn't capture the whole truth.

Through the filter

The whole truth is that we each have a filter through which we see universal insurance. Some of us see it as a necessity for the financial security we value highly. Others see health insurance as a bonus, but it's wrong for it to creep into the category of a necessity or a birthright. We used to be made of tougher stuff, and not rely on government guarantees for our lives and healthcare choices.

As much as I respect self-reliance, I'm solidly middle-class by birth and education, and I don't want to be uninsured. That happens to be the same sentiment expressed by this Tea Party thirty-something: "This is my only option for employer care and I don't want to be uninsured." We bourgeoisie, we really can't imagine life without our security blankets.

As I said before, possibly I'm overplaying how an uninsured middle-class person would respond to a cancer diagnosis, or I'm generalizing too much from my own personal reaction. I'm not certain, but I see the evidence that others respond the same way.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

That's Nelson Mandela according to some comments in response to a National Review column where the author admits to being so wrong in his conservative's fear of Mandela.

I suppose that it doesn't matter if you manage to avoid a bloodbath when you negotiate the end of oppressive, violent minority rule. It doesn't matter if you try to heal your country through truth and reconciliation, and you largely succeed at that awesome and unbelievable task. To some people with tiny brains and tiny hearts, you're just scum. And a baby murderer.

For myself, I believe that angels sometimes walk among us, not as supernatural beings, but when people are inspired to do more good than you thought was possible. Farewell, Madiba. Deepest thanks for making a world so much better.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Yes, it looks gross--like shredded blood vessels or color-coded spinal cord. In other words, nothing you want to see. However, this graphic shows the trends in the party affiliation of the members of both the House and Senate. A constriction on one side of this blood vessel means a big loss.

As volatile as control of the House and Senate has seemed in the last 30 years, it's nothing compared to the political shredding in the first 150 years of our republic. I was lulled by growing up during the relatively stable period between 1946 and 1978, but I definitely don't want to go back to that. I'm fine with throwing them out rather than letting bad policies get entrenched.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

In the early 90's, Bill Clinton showed the Democrats how to win again. The country had been sick of the liberal do-gooderism that was causing big increases in the tax burden and the welfare rolls. The lesson from Clinton was the private sector IS GOOD. Ever increasing social spending and taxation IS NOT GOOD. Run on a different platform from that.

The liberal/progressive Dems, however, never liked the lesson, and definitely never took it to heart. They jumped at a non-Clinton candidate in 2007 and crowed at their victory with their stealth candidate Obama. It turned out that he wasn't as progressive as they wanted, but he didn't smack them down, which Clinton had done. The Dems didn't go wild in 2009 because they had to get bills through the Senate, which didn't have 60 progressive votes. They toned it down, but the message was apparent. The tax-and-spend liberals were in ascendance in the Democratic Party.

Obama didn't smack them down, so the 2010 elections did. The Dems learned a lesson, which was to make deals when necessary. And definitely keep quiet about the secret longings for new spending and new taxes--not just a rollback of old tax cuts. Dems even pretended that they cared more about the deficit than the GOP did.

Because the GOP was on a loony rampage. Yes, it was sometimes covered with a veneer of restraint and old-fashioned conservatism, but the crazy was always evident at or near the surface. So the 2012 electorate was right not to entrust lots of governmental power to the GOP.

Now, the true Democratic agenda is coming back. No more deals, no more cutting any spending, wasteful or not. They could be heading to another electorate smackdown in 2014, but I wouldn't count on it because the GOP may be as much on a loony rampage as before. The Dems figure that they have no reason to behave responsibly. They may win by default, and they can pretend that they have a mandate for their progressive policies.

This is so aggravating to me. There is a whole, huge, sensible middle ground to be scooped up. That's the middle ground in political policy and the middle group in the electorate. Yet neither side is moving to that middle ground. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU POLITICIANS????!!!!????